Pakistan hawks prevail over its doves

[Bang Galore]

Kanwal Sibal


The dialogue with Pakistan will remain one-sided, with the country expecting concessions from India but not feeling obliged to make any itself.


India-Pakistan relations are exceedingly difficult to manage because the two countries look at each other very differently. Both affirm the need to live in peace, resolve outstanding differences, give up past attitudes, strengthen expanding peace constituencies amidst them and attach priority to the task of eradicating the shared problem of poverty. But when it comes to concrete steps in this direction by decision makers, a huge gap between what each side expects of the other emerges.

Pakistan still believes that it is a victim of India's hegemonist and hostile policies. It hold India responsible for stalling progress towards normalisation, not reciprocating Pakistan's conciliatory gestures, and defeating the efforts of the peace lobbies in Pakistan by not responding even minimally. It puts the burden of trust building on India's shoulders.

The Pakistanis want us to move beyond the Mumbai episode and be less fixated on Hafiz Saeed. They deny that Pakistan, being a greater victim of terrorism than India, has any interest in supporting '******' activity. The steadily declining infiltration figures prove, they argue, that Pakistan's military has clamped down on anti-India activity, and if incidents such as the recent killing of five Indian soldiers on the LoC occur, the responsibility lies on Indian policies in J&K.

The dialogue with Pakistan will thus remain one-sided, with Pakistan expecting concessions from us but not feeling obliged to make any itself. Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif has repeatedly announced his intention to focus on Kashmir. In his address to the nation this week he has referred to Kashmir as the "jugular vein" of Pakistan, implying that India's throttling grip over Pakistan has to be unloosened. If he needs such rhetoric to cover his flanks, the implication is that powerful forces in Pakistan need to be appeased, even if the armed forces are now supposedly on board to improve relations with India.

For trust building, Pakistan expects concrete Indian steps to satisfy Pakistan on outstanding issues, whether Sir Creek, Siachen, water-related issues or our policies in J&K, especially on human rights and treatment of the separatists. Under these conditions we cannot ever earn Pakistan's trust.

If trust building means that Pakistan should do what any normal country should do, namely, give up the use of terrorism against us, dismantle the infrastructure of terrorism that still exists on its territory, curb the '******' groups operating against India and expel or extradite Indian terrorists given shelter by it, then the principal onus for removing distrust lies on Pakistani shoulders instead.

Yet, despite the UN Security Council declaring Jamaat-ud-Dawa a terrorist organisation and putting its leader Hafiz Saeed on its list of terrorists, Nawaz Sharif's brother, the Chief Minister of Punjab, gives the organisation almost 60 million rupees from government funds for charitable work, besides allowing Hafiz Saeed to lead the Id prayers in Lahore's Gaddafi Stadium a few days ago. For us, trust building would also include tangible progress on the trial of those accused of the Mumbai terror attacks.

If Sir Creek and Siachen are doable according to the Pakistanis and Indian peaceniks, why is curbing Hafiz Saeed, making some progress in bringing to justice those responsible for Mumbai, or not permitting the so-called non-state actors from crossing the LoC, not doable? Nawaz Sharif's government has now announced that granting MFN treatment to India is not presently under consideration. For a leader supposedly committed to strengthening trade ties with India, even this "doable" step has been shelved.

Pakistan uses the dialogue platform to press India for concessions, whereas, by delinking dialogue from terrorism, we have lifted pressure on Pakistan to make the vital concession we want. Having a dialogue also attenuates international pressure on Pakistan on terrorism, besides allowing it to claim its readiness to negotiate positively only if India would be less rigid.

The government is keeping the doors open for a meeting between the two Prime Ministers in New York next month. If that happens, Nawaz Sharif will press for a joint statement which will, of necessity, incorporate all that Pakistan wants, including the resumption of the composite dialogue, with India including some ritual references to creating congenial conditions for such a dialogue by controlling terrorism, etc. In other words, we will revert to our failed policies based on the discredited premise that we have no option but to have a dialogue with Pakistan.

Naturally, the politically inane who believe that our dialogue with Pakistan should be "uninterrupted and uniterruptible" and some foreign policy illiterate former media advisers who, for perverse ideological reasons, want India to be punished for Pakistan's misdeeds, would be delighted to see another India-Pakistan embrace at New York. It is a peculiar syndrome that makes these deluded Indian doves coo even as Pakistani hawks deplume their Indian prey.



— The writer is a former Foreign Secretary.

The Tribune, Chandigarh, India - Opinions

 

[Iggy]

Is this the same thing we are saying it in this forum.. You only get the same old BS replies..

 

[Areesh]

Hilarious part is that this article about supposed Pakistani hawks is written by someone whose whole country goes into war frenzy after death of every Indian soldier in IOK or LOC.

 

[joekrish]

Hilarious part is that this article about supposed Pakistani hawks is written by someone whose whole country goes into war frenzy after death of every Indian soldier in IOK or LOC.

It's but natural when lives are lost for dirty games played across the border and our politicians keep their eyes closed, we have raised our voices even when the Maoist have gunned down our brave men. We are not partial.

 

[Areesh]

It's but natural when lives are lost for dirty games played across the border and our politicians keep their eyes closed, we have raised our voices even when the Maoist have gunned down our brave men. We are not partial.

Not really. The troopers dead at the hands of maoists normally not get as much hype as the ones killed in IOK.

 

[Pulsar]

Even if India were to hand over Kashmir to Pakistan on a silver platter as also Sir Creek, Siachen, and demolishes all the dams that Pakistan wants us to, there can never be peace.

A country that was born solely on religion can never peacefully co-exist with a secular country such as India. These ideologies are diametrically opposite to each other. The twain can never meet!

And that is the reality. The sooner we understand that the better.

 

[Spring Onion]

Kanwal Sibal


The dialogue with Pakistan will remain one-sided, with the country expecting concessions from India but not feeling obliged to make any itself.

One Sided piece of shyt by kanwal sibal wherein he himself despite being and Indian is name calling Indian "secular" party and its people INANE . So all can see he is a Hindu Hawk NOT Pakistanis.


Anyway let me comment on all one sided points of Mr. Indian writer

India-Pakistan relations are exceedingly difficult to manage because the two countries look at each other very differently. Both affirm the need to live in peace, resolve outstanding differences, give up past attitudes, strengthen expanding peace constituencies amidst them and attach priority to the task of eradicating the shared problem of poverty. But when it comes to concrete steps in this direction by decision makers, a huge gap between what each side expects of the other emerges.Pakistan still believes that it is a victim of India's hegemonist and hostile policies. It hold India responsible for stalling progress towards normalisation, not reciprocating Pakistan's conciliatory gestures, and defeating the efforts of the peace lobbies in Pakistan by not responding even minimally. It puts the burden of trust building on India's shoulders.

The Pakistanis want us to move beyond the Mumbai episode and be less fixated on Hafiz Saeed. They deny that Pakistan, being a greater victim of terrorism than India, has any interest in supporting '******' activity. The steadily declining infiltration figures prove, they argue, that Pakistan's military has clamped down on anti-India activity, and if incidents such as the recent killing of five Indian soldiers on the LoC occur, the responsibility lies on Indian policies in J&K.

The dialogue with Pakistan will thus remain one-sided, with Pakistan expecting concessions from us but not feeling obliged to make any itself. Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif has repeatedly announced his intention to focus on Kashmir. In his address to the nation this week he has referred to Kashmir as the "jugular vein" of Pakistan, implying that India's throttling grip over Pakistan has to be unloosened. If he needs such rhetoric to cover his flanks, the implication is that powerful forces in Pakistan need to be appeased, even if the armed forces are now supposedly on board to improve relations with India.

Indeed the ball is in Indian Court with Pakistan always willing to talk and cooperate. Its always Indians who beat WAR drums and your hawkish orange media NOT ours.


2. And what is that "one sided concession from India" we want? Please name one single such concession .

then we can argue that point otherwise its always India and Indians who wants trade route/ who want all Indian content be released in Pakistan.

For trust building, Pakistan expects concrete Indian steps to satisfy Pakistan on outstanding issues, whether Sir Creek, Siachen, water-related issues or our policies in J&K, especially on human rights and treatment of the separatists. Under these conditions we cannot ever earn Pakistan's trust.

And what is disputed in it? specially human rights in occupied Kashmir which Indian refused to be investigated by even a Neutral world body .

If trust building means that Pakistan should do what any normal country should do, namely, give up the use of terrorism against us, dismantle the infrastructure of terrorism that still exists on its territory, curb the '******' groups operating against India and expel or extradite Indian terrorists given shelter by it, then the principal onus for removing distrust lies on Pakistani shoulders instead.

We demand the same from India. Indian terror camps in Afghanistan consulates of her where India is training and funding BLA terrorists against Pakistan.

Yet, despite the UN Security Council declaring Jamaat-ud-Dawa a terrorist organisation and putting its leader Hafiz Saeed on its list of terrorists, Nawaz Sharif's brother, the Chief Minister of Punjab, gives the organisation almost 60 million rupees from government funds for charitable work, besides allowing Hafiz Saeed to lead the Id prayers in Lahore's Gaddafi Stadium a few days ago. For us, trust building would also include tangible progress on the trial of those accused of the Mumbai terror attacks.

Prove cases against him and we will take action. He himself asked India to come and prove him he is involved in Mumbai attacks.

As far as leading Eid prayers (its not Id mr sibal what kinda an uneducated foreign secretary you are who is unaware about spellings of one of the biggest festivals of majority Indian Muslims), is concerned well its his religious right/personal right you cant stop him even a convicted criminal.

If Sir Creek and Siachen are doable according to the Pakistanis and Indian peaceniks, why is curbing Hafiz Saeed, making some progress in bringing to justice those responsible for Mumbai, or not permitting the so-called non-state actors from crossing the LoC, not doable? Nawaz Sharif's government has now announced that granting MFN treatment to India is not presently under consideration. For a leader supposedly committed to strengthening trade ties with India, even this "doable" step has been shelved.

We are doing everything to make everything doable you act on Sir Creek and Siachen and we will reciprocate simple as that.

Pakistan uses the dialogue platform to press India for concessions, whereas, by delinking dialogue from terrorism, we have lifted pressure on Pakistan to make the vital concession we want. Having a dialogue also attenuates international pressure on Pakistan on terrorism, besides allowing it to claim its readiness to negotiate positively only if India would be less rigid.

And what is this concession once again?? "terrorism" has always been talked about in these peace talks so no question of delinking in the first place.

2. And what vital concession India wants from Pakistan ???? please openly name it.

And isn't it funny that on the one hand you are against any talks between the two and on the other hand you are still seeking MFN??

The government is keeping the doors open for a meeting between the two Prime Ministers in New York next month. If that happens, Nawaz Sharif will press for a joint statement which will, of necessity, incorporate all that Pakistan wants, including the resumption of the composite dialogue, with India including some ritual references to creating congenial conditions for such a dialogue by controlling terrorism, etc. In other words, we will revert to our failed policies based on the discredited premise that we have no option but to have a dialogue with Pakistan.

So Mr. sabal you are one of the Indian Hawks who is afraid of any such JOINT statement pressing for PEACE TALKS between India and Pakistan.

Its clear that you are supporting and exhibiting Indian hawks' mentality to stall any peace dialogue between the two.

Naturally, the politically inane who believe that our dialogue with Pakistan should be "uninterrupted and uniterruptible" and some foreign policy illiterate former media advisers who, for perverse ideological reasons, want India to be punished for Pakistan's misdeeds, would be delighted to see another India-Pakistan embrace at New York. It is a peculiar syndrome that makes these deluded Indian doves coo even as Pakistani hawks deplume their Indian prey.

Ahhh oh Mr. Sibal you are surely Hindu extremist groups' boy who is calling Indian secular Congress party as inane and also you are calling those Indian Media advisors illiterates who are for peace talks between the two countries.
The above shows your true Hawk side and also rings a bell that its hawks like you and Hindu extremist groups from India that are prevailing over doves from both sides.

have a good day sir.

 

[Bang Galore]

Not really. The troopers dead at the hands of maoists normally not get as much hype as the ones killed in IOK.

Depends on the type of attack but there is a difference. A non-Indian hand is not seen as existing there. Domestic violence will never reach the same pitch that transnational incidents have.

 

[[Bregs]]

Manmohan singh would like to give one final push for peace with Pakistan, lets see how it goes and how much trust both countries are able to build in each other

Retired bureaucrats lie Mr Sibal it seems live in the years when they retired not in present, its not the point that what India and Pakistan wants in talks from each other as a base for future talks but both needs peace for there peoples to usher in mutual trust, happiness and economic prosperity but to achieve this a beginning a sincere one has to be made sooner before its too late, Peace has no short cuts and has no alternative

 

[Bang Galore]

One Sided piece of shyt by kanwal sibal wherein he himself despite being and Indian is name calling Indian "secular" party and its people INANE . So all can see he is a Hindu Hawk NOT Pakistanis.

Hawk? Yes but no evidence to suggest that Hindu/Hindutva interests him. He is after all the brother of one of the most powerful cabinet ministers belonging to the INC, Kapil Sibal.

2. And what is that "one sided concession from India" we want? Please name one single such concession .

then we can argue that point otherwise its always India and Indians who wants trade route/ who want all Indian content be released in Pakistan.

What do you want? On Kashmir(in general), Siachen(in particular) etc ? Looks pretty one sided since you have nothing to offer us on either matter.

Prove cases against him and we will take action. He himself asked India to come and prove him he is involved in Mumbai attacks.

As far as leading Eid prayers (its not Id mr sibal what kinda an uneducated foreign secretary you are who is unaware about spellings of one of the biggest festivals of majority Indian Muslims), is concerned well its his religious right/personal right you cant stop him even a convicted criminal.

It is not just about leading prayers, this is a man with a known track record of connection to a terrorist organisation. He remains on the U.S. wanted list as well as a designated terrorist by the U.N. Not keeping him on a tight leash, especially after Mumbai indicates lack of seriousness on Pakistan's part. If he wants to come to India to prove his "innocence", Pakistan must do everything to facilitate his visit.

We are doing everything to make everything doable you act on Sir Creek and Siachen and we will reciprocate simple as that.

Act on Siachen, Sir Creek & you will do what exactly? Please spell it out. otherwise it remains just vague promises about some reciprocity.

And what is this concession once again?? "terrorism" has always been talked about in these peace talks so no question of delinking in the first place.

2. And what vital concession India wants from Pakistan ???? please openly name it.

You have to clamp down on terrorist groups completely to even start negotiation. We are not about to allow you to link that with any other settlement, this is a prerequisite. Nobody is about to allow that as a negotiating tactic.

On Siachen, what is it that Pakistan has to offer. Asking India to withdraw is not about to be accepted unless Pakistan offers something in return.

And isn't it funny that on the one hand you are against any talks between the two and on the other hand you are still seeking MFN??

You are treaty bound to give India MFN. It is not a choice, nor is it a favour. When Pakistan wanted concessions from the EU on textile exports, it saw no problem in requesting India not to object, in a matter where Indian exports would be affected. Any Indian objections would have automatically ended any concession as the WTO rules make clear.

So Mr. sabal you are one of the Indian Hawks who is afraid of any such JOINT statement pressing for PEACE TALKS between India and Pakistan.

Its clear that you are supporting and exhibiting Indian hawks' mentality to stall any peace dialogue between the two.

He certainly is, that is not by itself a wrong place to be. I wish for India & Pakistan to have peace but how that can be achieved is not comprehensible to me or to many others, including Mr.Sibal. The gulf between what Pakistan wants & what it can offer is immense. Pakistan brings almost nothing to the table, the much touted transportation to countries of central Asia while welcome, is too hazy in practical terms & almost ceretainly not worth the price that Pakistan seems to want, i.e. a settlement of Kashmir on its terms. That is simply a waste of time. Musharraf's proposals are the best that can be done & even open borders will remain a chimera until Pakistan is able to control armed groups within its border. The PPP government & your CoAS backed away from what Musharraf agreed to, the Indian polity now simply does not trust any agreement reached to work.




I would very much like to know what your position on India-Pak issues is, what you think can be reasonably done on Siachen & what is a mutually acceptable solution to Kashmir. Do you agree with the Musharraf-MMS proposals & if not, what is your position?

 

[acid rain]

The issue is like circular debt - India says demolish terrorist infrastructure and stop terrorism and Pakistan says resolve Kashmir to stop terrorism, thus no one moves forward, another problem is Pakistan has become the global hub for terrorism and all its supporting activities from training, finance, recruitment and safe haven and it is impossible for them to stop international terrorism - end result is we aren't going anywhere with the peace discussion.

 

[Rafael]

Ignore the dog people!

 

[Spring Onion]

Hawk? Yes but no evidence to suggest that Hindu/Hindutva interests him. He is after all the brother of one of the most powerful cabinet ministers belonging to the INC, Kapil Sibal.




What do you want? On Kashmir(in general), Siachen(in particular) etc ? Looks pretty one sided since you have nothing to offer us on either matter.



It is not just about leading prayers, this is a man with a known track record of connection to a terrorist organisation. He remains on the U.S. wanted list as well as a designated terrorist by the U.N. Not keeping him on a tight leash, especially after Mumbai indicates lack of seriousness on Pakistan's part. If he wants to come to India to prove his "innocence", Pakistan must do everything to facilitate his visit.





Act on Siachen, Sir Creek & you will do what exactly? Please spell it out. otherwise it remains just vague promises about some reciprocity.






You have to clamp down on terrorist groups completely to even start negotiation. We are not about to allow you to link that with any other settlement, this is a prerequisite. Nobody is about to allow that as a negotiating tactic.

On Siachen, what is it that Pakistan has to offer. Asking India to withdraw is not about to be accepted unless Pakistan offers something in return.



You are treaty bound to give India MFN. It is not a choice, nor is it a favour. When Pakistan wanted concessions from the EU on textile exports, it saw no problem in requesting India not to object, in a matter where Indian exports would be affected. Any Indian objections would have automatically ended any concession as the WTO rules make clear.



He certainly is, that is not by itself a wrong place to be. I wish for India & Pakistan to have peace but how that can be achieved is not comprehensible to me or to many others, including Mr.Sibal. The gulf between what Pakistan wants & what it can offer is immense. Pakistan brings almost nothing to the table, the much touted transportation to countries of central Asia while welcome, is too hazy in practical terms & almost ceretainly not worth the price that Pakistan seems to want, i.e. a settlement of Kashmir on its terms. That is simply a waste of time. Musharraf's proposals are the best that can be done & even open borders will remain a chimera until Pakistan is able to control armed groups within its border. The PPP government & your CoAS backed away from what Musharraf agreed to, the Indian polity now simply does not trust any agreement reached to work.




I would very much like to know what your position on India-Pak issues is, what you think can be reasonably done on Siachen & what is a mutually acceptable solution to Kashmir. Do you agree with the Musharraf-MMS proposals & if not, what is your position?

will answer you in details for your points don't have time at the moment but shortly


1. We cant and should not offer anything to you in return for withdrawal from our territory Siachen (you also know you have occupied it illegally). So better go back to old positions.


2. Kashmir cant be solved in one day but it indeed needs to be talked on table.

3. Musharraf-MMS solution seems to be better keeping in mind all odds which also will also keep at bay the outsiders or to say any other country.

4.My personal opinion is that an unresolved Kashmir will remain to be headache for both hence you must have to solve it to some extend (Absolute solution is NOT possible for both). So I repeat have to solve it to some extend and that is


A. Either Joint Control

B. Referendum (which means J&K be divided further those who wants to join India will go to it those who wants to join will go to Pakistan OR even of one part wants to go to India and remaining wants to stay Independent that will be a win win situation for India).

C. in my personal opinion there can be another possibility that India declare J&K an Azad Kashmir on pattern of Azad Kashmir on our side THIS in my personal opinion will give India an edge and Pakistan on State level wont be able to raise finger.

D. In my personal opinion if none of the above are going to be considered at any stage then I strongly believe that big world players (US-China) will be having a BIG eye on J&K when the time arise and in that case both India Pakistan will be screwed up and lose everything.

 

[Malik Usman]

Is this the same thing we are saying it in this forum.. You only get the same old BS replies..

And its same old BS all the time from Indian Govt....."Choor Be Kahey Choor Choor.".........do by yourself...and then cover it with lies that peoples start believing that its true.

 

[Thor]

Like Pakistan, the Brahmins and upper elite who make ALL te decision in India too are the bigget problem. There has to be people to people contact ie with the majority who are the untouchables and who actually make up the bulk of the Indian Army Jawans. Pakistan too should snub the cast elite which too would show the rifts artificially created in India